34 comments:

1. Criminals won't comply with this and still get guns, or make them. You fail to understand how easy it is to make a firearm. Not just a one shot gun, but an AR type or AK type. It took me just a few hours in my shop, that is not equipped for metal work, to build an M4. AK types of rifles are slightly more complicated, but can still be done in a day.

2. This would be in violation of federal law. This would be contrary to "not be infinged". There would still be 300M unregistered firearms available for theft and blackmarket sales.

3. This is like requiring a crack user to get a prescription before buying crack at the local drug house. There is nothing that would compel a criminal seller to conduct a NICS on his criminal buyer.

4. California has a waiting period and still has the highest rate of mass shootings. DC has a waiting period and still has the highest violent crime rate. There is no data suggesting that a waiting period reduces crime.

5. There is a reason that the past 'may issue' states have moved to a shall issue system, because it works.

6. Yeah, California is the shining star of gun control and still has a high crime rate and more mass killings than any other state. California's gun control may be comforting to you, but obviously it doesn't work.

At first glance many of the items in MikeB's list sound "reasonable". Here are the problems with MikeB's item 1. Licensing:

Eye exams would exclude people with poor vision from using a firearm with blanks to defend themselves. Blanks are cartridges with powder only and no bullet. While they are quite effective within a few inches of a handgun, they pose no threat to anyone beyond two feet. It's a lot like pepper spray except you don't have to point it at the attacker's face to be effective.

Requiring local authorities to approve citizens to own and/or carry firearms is asking for abuse. The local authority could demand "favors" (payoffs, sex, etc.) in exchange for approval. Or the local authority might not like someone (such as a political enemy or an entire class of people) and deny approval as punishment. And a local authority might simply deny everyone or take years to approve.

Fortunately we don't have to speculate about these possibilities for abuse. All three happen currently in various jurisdictions in California and our Eastern Seaboard states such as New York, Maryland, and New Jersey.

When responsible citizens need government permission for something, it turns out bad for a lot of people. No thank you. I don't need government permission to go to the bathroom. And I don't need government permission to defend myself.

MikeB wants to stop citizens from purchasing firearms for felons ... as does every civic minded citizen including myself. Nevertheless there are three problems with this. First, it will be next to impossible for law enforcement to go after the millions of people who will fail to appear after three months or yearly thereafter. Second, citizens can simply claim that they lost their firearms in a "boating accident" or that someone stole them -- freeing them from re-registering. Finally, entities have used registrations for mass confiscations. This happened in California, Australia, Canada, and Great Britain. What would stop it from happening in the U.S.?

I don't see how MikeB's 3. "Three day waiting period" accomplishes anything. Is that so an angry person can cool down? If an angry person is still angry enough to kill someone after spending an hour or more to drive to a gun shop, choose a firearm, learn how to operate it, purchase it, and then find the person with whom they are angry, I don't see how making them wait an additional three days will help.

And what about a good citizen who finds out they have a stalker and want to purchase a firearm the same day for personal protection?

MikeB's number 5. "May Issue concealed carry permits" has the same problems listed for item 1 ... which we currently see in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey.

Of course the positive side to federal "May Issue" is that residents of Illinois would finally have an opportunity for concealed carry. But that will happen shortly anyway ... either pending court cases or the Illinois state legislature will pave the way for concealed carry. And until that happens, individual counties in Illinois are no longer prosecuting citizens for concealed carry if they were not committing any [other] crimes when carrying concealed.

Mikeb, you grow more delusional over time. A rational advocate for gun control would see that the American people don't want it and would work for minor adjustments, rather than these sweeping changes that you call for here.

And MikeB's item 6. is a solution in search of a problem. Criminals kill more people every year with their fists than with rifles. And when criminals use rifles, they almost never use the semi-automatic rifles that MikeB calls "assault rifles" ... because criminals accomplish their objectives with shotguns or handguns that cost one quarter the price of semi-automatic rifles.

For citizens, however, semi-automatic rifles with extended magazines are an important defensive item. When a gang of three or four criminals recently drove their truck into a citizen's business and yelled, "Kill the mother****er", the citizen used all the ammunition in his rifle's magazine to repel the criminals.

Similar events happened in Los Angeles during the riots in the 1990s when Korean business owners stood on the roofs of their businesses and repelled mobs who were intent on harming the owners and/or their businesses.

And if I lived anywhere in the U.S. within 90 miles of the Mexican border, I would definitely want the option to have a semi-automatic rifle with an extended magazine.

1. Outside my home, I'd be required to be unarmed, since I have no doubt that your may-issue system would not issue me a carry license.

2. Several of my guns and magazines wouldn't meet your silly number restrictions, and some of my guns have cosmetic features that you can't stand.

3. Your licensing requirements for ownership say nothing about what "approval by local authorites" means, but we all know that the government hates granting permission to exercise rights.

Mikeb, these proposals have nothing to do with being responsible and abiding by the law. What you want is nothing less than a desire to disarm good citizens. Criminals would continue to be armed--illegally, as they are now.

The additional problem is that with a registration scheme, the government would have a list of guns to confiscate in the future. Again, criminals wouldn't register their guns or turn them in.

It would totally depend on how the local authorities would find ways to abuse the system as applies to law abiding. Local authorities abuse law systems all the time, some examples you have posted yourself in different subjects.

The extended magazine ban is just pure crap, has no effect on crime and I posted four studies for you before that explained that as well. There are several more valid published studies that say the same.

I am not against private sales background checks as I have stated before, but it will still have no effect on the criminals getting what they want. This would only assure me that a stranger wanting my weapon is a legal person, at the time anyway.

The entire proposal would have zero effect on the criminal.

Mike, your looking on the roof for the dime you dropped in the basement because the light is better on the roof. All of what your proposing has been tried and failed in one state or another over the years. Except for Vermont, a nation wide ban on carry weapons that still failed because crime was higher during that time.

So would affect me personally or those that I know, no. But again, only IF the system wasn't abused. Would affect ANY law abiding citizen? No. Again, it would still depend on the system being handled correctly.

Since the effect would be ZERO on either the law abiding and on the criminal, whats the point?

Still cant find that dime in the basement if your looking on the roof.

If 1 and 5 go into effect, then yes many people will be unarmed and/or disarmed -- as they are now in California, Illinois, New York, Maryland, and New Jersey. (Keep in mind just those 5 states encompass over 60 million people!)

If 2 goes into effect, then yes many people will be disarmed when they simply forget to re-register their firearms annually. And everyone could be disarmed if government goes haywire.

MikeB here is the larger problem. Your arrangement positions government bureaucrats -- who are just as likely to be psycho, hateful, intolerant, racist, incapable, corrupt, or apathetic as anyone else -- to have both the discretion and power to micromanage citizens' lives. That is the polar opposite of Liberty.

Do you trust a bureaucrat at a health insurance company to make good decisions on what medical procedures you can and cannot have? Neither do I. And neither do I trust a government bureaucrat to make good decisions about matters of my personal security and what property (objects) I can or cannot purchase, own, or possess.

"What you want is nothing less than a desire to disarm good citizens."

No, Greg, I don't.

For one thing, I don't want you to be able to sell or give a gun away to someone without taking them down to the local FFL guy for a background check. I don't want you to own extended magazines just in case you go off the deep end some day. I want you to have an eye exam once a year and any new guns you purchase should be registered to you and you would have to be responsible for them.

Because you're creating a scheme that I have to comply with to exercise my rights. You're calling for bans on things that I own. And you're making proposals that would accomplish none of your stated desires for safety.

Get the message, Mikeb. We don't trust you. We refuse to stand by quietly while you try to pass new infringements.

//And what about a good citizen who finds out they have a stalker and want to purchase a firearm the same day for personal protection?//

goddam...that is funny. "Gees, Lena, I think I have a stalker. I best go buy a gun.""Ok, Ole, and get some extra ammo for the gol-darn paper boy that throws the paper in the bushes. Oh, and while you are there, get some extra bait. I think we should go Walleye fishing tomorrow."

//And if I lived anywhere in the U.S. within 90 miles of the Mexican border, I would definitely want the option to have a semi-automatic rifle with an extended magazine.//

but if you lived within ten miles of the Canadian border you wouldn't? I guess those Canadians run slow enough, what with the plaid jackets and those funny rubber boots they wear.

but gosh.... I jest. I know how every one must be prepared for eventualities.... Personally I keep my Grandfathers 10 gauge shotgun under my bed.....just in case elephants would steal my jello....so far it has worked. Gees!

"but gosh.... I jest. I know how every one must be prepared for eventualities.... Personally I keep my Grandfathers 10 gauge shotgun under my bed.....just in case elephants would steal my jello....so far it has worked. Gees!"

okjimm said...//And what about a good citizen who finds out they have a stalker and want to purchase a firearm the same day for personal protection?//

goddam...that is funny. "Gees, Lena, I think I have a stalker. I best go buy a gun.""Ok, Ole, and get some extra ammo for the gol-darn paper boy that throws the paper in the bushes. Oh, and while you are there, get some extra bait. I think we should go Walleye fishing tomorrow."

Of course, because no one in their right mind who possesses at least a tiny bit of common sense would never get a firearm and conceal carry permit because they have a stalker. That's just an absolute ridiculous reason to be armed.

We're reasonably safe from elephants here in America, although if you recall the incident in Ohio with the escaped exotic animals, you may not want to dismiss that shotgun too soon. Actually, unless you're well stocked on shells, I'd recommend a twelve gauge for logistics reasons.

Rather than to introduce a licensing system (a government agency which would create a safety hazard for the public every time it does its duty to issue a document allowing an ordinary citizen, with no ties to the military or any police or security agency, and with little concern or need for the safety of the greater society) it would be far more practical and cost effective to simply extend "prohibited person" status to more groups of persons who are likely to cause injury or engage in nefarious activities when entrusted with arms. Start with persons convicted for DUI or its "lesser" forms, and progress to misdemeanor assault or drug (including marijuana) possession. Impose other non-license requirements, such as a minimum age beginning at at least 21 and higher sales taxes on firearms which would be far more cost effective, would be more politically feasible, and would not require the government to acknowledge any "legitimacy" of civilian firearm possession. As for the infamous "assault weapon" a ban on certain features exhibited by the rifle itself, public safety would benefit more from a ban on the size of the magazine, (such as a limit of 5 or 10 cartridges) as any center-fire (that means high powered) rifle is about as dangerous as any other in itself,the number of bullets which are at the disposal to a potential gunman, pose the real threat (other than the presence of the gun or any other destructive weapon in and of itself).

Does the gun control side ever bother researching gun laws? A DUI conviction already makes you a prohibited person. So does a violent misdemeanor. In most states, you have to be at least twenty-one years old to buy a handgun or to get a carry license. You're arguing for laws that are already on the books. Will you next demand that the sky be blue on a clear day?

But regarding your other control measures, do you seriously imagine that you could get a new tax passed in today's political climate? That's especially in consideration of all of us gun rights people who would protest to our elected representatives. And would you please show me how having a larger magazine is evil? The magazine that the Aurora wacko used jammed. That larger magazine may have saved lives.

But Greg, Don't you know we all live in Care Bear land and we dance on fluffy clouds and everyone gets along except grumpy but even grumpy eventually comes around to sing and dance and hold hands with the rest of us Care Bears. We don't need guns because guns are evil and they serve no useful purpose for Care Bears any more.

Most people in the U.S. reject E.N.'s notion of classes of people of differing inherent value and rights. Our United States Constitution starts with these seven words, "We the People of the United States ...". I don't see anything about "We the lower class people, ordinary people, upper class people, power elite, and government officials ..."

And our government does not lawfully grant permission to (allow) anyone to exercise rights. Rights always have been and always will be ours to exercise. In fact government's most central role is to secure our rights, not interfere with them or dole them out at government's pleasure.

Please remember that "ordinary citizens" -- whether armed or not -- mean you no harm. You will be in the presence of and/or pass tens of thousands of ordinary citizens this year and not one of them will harm you or endanger you.

Anonymous, you know what E.N. means by "ordinary." So you're first mistake is to pretend not to know and attack. Your second mistake is to quote the Constitution which did not include blacks or women. The writers of that holy document were misogynist slave owners. Although they did get some things right, they are not quotable as authorities in my book.

You may not see the U.S. Constitution as an authority, but U.S. law regards it in a different way. No matter how much whining you do, unless you can amend the Constitution, you have to accept the document as it's written. The fact that it took us a while to figure out what the words mean doesn't negate the value of those words.

What E.N. meant by ordinary is obvious. "Ordinary" in that comment meant all of us who aren't cops or soldiers. That comment shows the desires of your side. Your side doesn't want private ownership of guns. You can deny that for yourself, even though the consequence of your proposals would be exactly that.